DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 filed February 26th 2026 are pending in the current action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The amendment filed February 26th 2026 changes the scope of the claims of the current application to be patentably distinct from the claims in U.S. Pat#12,223,106. Thus, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsland et al. (US2021/0223864) in view of Hassani et al. (US2021/0237715)
Consider claim 11, where Forsland teaches a system for interfacing an individual having a brain computer interface configured to control one or more electronic devices, (See Forsland ¶44 where there is a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) that can be miniaturized as an implantable under the skin and communicate wirelessly with a pair of smart AR contact lenses.) the system comprising: a neural implant configured to measure neural-related signals of the individual; (See Forsland ¶159-164 and Fig. 8 where the steps include reading a bio-signal using the first area of the PCB as an analog front end (block 802), processing the captured bio-signal (block 804), analyzing the bio-signal (block 806), mapping the bio-signal into command(s) (block 808), executing the command(s) (block 810), and recording the command(s) for future use (block 812). The command may be to turn on/off the lights; change a tv channel, etc…) and a processing unit configured to: obtain from the individual, using the neural implant, a first sensed neural signal associated with a first thought, associate the first sensed neural signal with a first input command, (See Forsland Fig. 11 and ¶169 where The EEG analog to digital converter 1106 receives the sensor 1104 output (e.g., intention). EEG analog to digital converter 1106 transforms the sensor output into a digital signal which is sent to processing 1110) and transmit the first input command to the first electronic device to cause the electronic device to issue an output command associated with the first input command, where the output command causes the first electronic device to take an action. (See Forsland ¶169, 198, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's somatosensory cortex, wherein stimulating includes the biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Forsland teaches a sensed neural signal, however Forsland does not explicitly teach associated with motor intent, and after associating, the processing unit is configured to a)provide a user feedback confirmation via a user feedback module that allows the individual to experience confirmation that the brain computer interface is recognizing the first through associated with the motor intent. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Hassani teaches associated with motor intent, and after associating, the processing unit is configured to a)provide a user feedback confirmation via a user feedback module that allows the individual to experience confirmation that the brain computer interface is recognizing the first through associated with the motor intent. (See Hassani fig. 3A and ¶52-53, 75 where he BMI training system may include a neuromuscular electrical stimulator system (not shown in FIG. 3) to obtain feedback of neural activity and provide the feedback to the user 310 based on the user's motor intent. The BMI training system 300 may convert the neural data to a vehicle control command instruction associated with one or more vehicle control functions) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input gestures of Forsland (See Forsland ¶185-186) to use motor intent as taught by Hassani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known sources of input gestures in the art to yield the desired result.
Consider claim 15, where Forsland in view of Hassani teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising providing wherein the feedback confirmation comprises observable feedback. (See Forsland ¶169, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Consider claim 16, where Forsland in view of Hassani teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the observable feedback comprises auditory or a visual feedback on a user interface. (See Forsland ¶169, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Consider claim 23, where Forsland in view of Hassani teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first sensed neural signal functions as a generic input command for independently controlling one of more further electronic devices using the first thought associated with motor intent. (See Hassani fig. 3A and ¶52-53, 75 where The finger, hand, and forearm movements (hereafter collectively referred to as “hand movements 350”) may be user-selected for their intuitiveness in representing vehicle driving controls (rightward turning, leftward turning, acceleration, and deceleration, respectively). The BMI training system may include a neuromuscular electrical stimulator system (not shown in FIG. 3) to obtain feedback of neural activity and provide the feedback to the user 310 based on the user's motor intent. The BMI training system 300 may convert the neural data to a vehicle control command instruction associated with one or more vehicle control functions) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input gestures of Forsland (See Forsland ¶185-186) to use motor intent as taught by Hassani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known sources of input gestures in the art to yield the desired result.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsland in view of Flaherty (US2006/0189900) in view of Hassani et al. (US2021/0237715)
Consider claim 1, where Forsland teaches a method for interfacing an individual having a brain computer interface configured to control an electronic device, (See Forsland ¶44 where there is a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) that can be miniaturized as an implantable under the skin and communicate wirelessly with a pair of smart AR contact lenses.) the method comprising: measuring neural-related signals of the individual using a neural implant to obtain a first sensed neural signal when the individual generates a first thought; (See Forsland ¶159-164 and Fig. 8 where the steps include reading a bio-signal using the first area of the PCB as an analog front end (block 802), processing the captured bio-signal (block 804), analyzing the bio-signal (block 806), mapping the bio-signal into command(s) (block 808), executing the command(s) (block 810), and recording the command(s) for future use (block 812). The command may be to turn on/off the lights; change a tv channel, etc…) transmitting the first sensed neural signal to a processing unit, where the processing unit associates the first sensed neural signal with a first input command independently of the electronic device; (See Forsland Fig. 11 and ¶169 where The EEG analog to digital converter 1106 receives the sensor 1104 output (e.g., intention). EEG analog to digital converter 1106 transforms the sensor output into a digital signal which is sent to processing 1110) and providing a feedback confirmation signal to the individual upon association of the first sensed neural signal with the first input command, wherein after the processing unit associates the first sensed neural signal with the first input command, the processing unit transmits the first input command to the electronic device to cause the electronic device to issue an output command associated with the first input command, where the output command causes the electronic device to take an action. (See Forsland ¶169, 198, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's somatosensory cortex, wherein stimulating includes the biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Forsland teaches mapping signals to outputs; however Forsland does not explicitly teach issue an output command previously associated with the first input command. However in an analogous field of endeavor Flaherty teaches previous association. (See Flaherty ¶83-87 where calibration involves recording previous configurations.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a previous mapping of the input to the output as taught by Flaherty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using existing mappings to speed up performance for the user.
Forsland teaches a sensed neural signal, however Forsland does not explicitly teach associated with motor intent, and after associating, the processing unit is configured to a) provide a user feedback confirmation via a user feedback module that allows the individual to experience confirmation that the brain computer interface is recognizing the first through associated with the motor intent. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Hassani teaches associated with motor intent, and after associating, the processing unit is configured to a)provide a user feedback confirmation via a user feedback module that allows the individual to experience confirmation that the brain computer interface is recognizing the first through associated with the motor intent. (See Hassani fig. 3A and ¶52-53, 75 where he BMI training system may include a neuromuscular electrical stimulator system (not shown in FIG. 3) to obtain feedback of neural activity and provide the feedback to the user 310 based on the user's motor intent. The BMI training system 300 may convert the neural data to a vehicle control command instruction associated with one or more vehicle control functions) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input gestures of Forsland (See Forsland ¶185-186) to use motor intent as taught by Hassani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known sources of input gestures in the art to yield the desired result.
Consider claim 6, where Forsland in view of Flaherty teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user feedback confirmation comprises observable feedback (See Forsland ¶169, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Consider claim 7, where Forsland in view of Flaherty teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the observable feedback comprises auditory or a visual feedback on a user interface. (See Forsland ¶169, 203 where The signal is then processed, analyzed and mapped to an Audio/Video/Haptic Output 1108 and displayed on the augmented reality glasses 1112. The BCI may stimulate the user's visual cortex, wherein stimulating includes biofeedback to the user's visual cortex and biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device. The BCI may stimulate the user's auditory cortex, wherein the stimulating includes biofeedback confirmation of the operating of the device.)
Consider claim 22, where Forsland in view of Flaherty in view of Hassani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first sensed neural signal functions as a generic input command for independently controlling one of more further electronic devices using the first thought associated with motor intent. (See Hassani fig. 3A and ¶52-53, 75 where the finger, hand, and forearm movements (hereafter collectively referred to as “hand movements 350”) may be user-selected for their intuitiveness in representing vehicle driving controls (rightward turning, leftward turning, acceleration, and deceleration, respectively). The BMI training system may include a neuromuscular electrical stimulator system (not shown in FIG. 3) to obtain feedback of neural activity and provide the feedback to the user 310 based on the user's motor intent. The BMI training system 300 may convert the neural data to a vehicle control command instruction associated with one or more vehicle control functions) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the input gestures of Forsland (See Forsland ¶185-186) to use motor intent as taught by Hassani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known sources of input gestures in the art to yield the desired result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 2 and 12 pertain to the limitation “wherein the user feedback module comprises an implanted component implanted within the individual.” While haptic implants exist in the prior art (See Levesque et al. (US2019/0038496)), it would have been non-obvious to incorporate this form of user feedback with the neural implant. Thus, claims 2 and 12 are objected to as allowable. Claims 3, 4 8-10, 13, 14, 17-21 are objected to as allowable based upon their dependence from claims 2 and 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights